There’s been much back-and-forth between campaigns and surrogates over the Seamus-on-the-roof / Obama-ate-puppies controversy for the past week or so. Funny stuff, huh? Pictures flying over the web of doggies in buns about to be consumed by the President; jokes about “German Shepherd’s Pie”…

The Obama campaign committed a welcome unforced error by attacking the Seamus angle, thereby opening itself to the ensuing proliferation of the reminder that Barack Hussein Obama is not a conventional American president – not at all.

Surely, the fact that Obama ate dogs can be written off as a cultural idiosyncrasy; irrelevant to the important issues of the campaign; a cheap line of attack. But that cultural idiosyncrasy and the questions it invokes is the point in paying attention to it at all, isn't it?

There is an essential "otherness" to the man who sits in the Oval Office. This is exemplified in many ways, but perhaps this most ridiculous and frivolous way serves as the best example.

Until now, even the most liberal American presidents have been "of" us; raised-up steeped in the uniquely American culture. Regardless of their personal history, we were able to assume that their leadership and decisions were based on a cumulative life history and set of experiences that were born of 100% Americanism – experiences that were at least tenuously shared by mainstream Americans, class or regional differences notwithstanding.

Now we have a man whose past is intentionally obscured; who was carted around from nation to nation like unwanted baggage as a child; who was abandoned by his Muslim father, then by dog-eating Lolo, then by his very own communist mother; who was raised by communist grandparents; whose education records are sealed; who uses a Connecticut Social Security number even though he is never known to have lived there; and who sold himself as some kind of messiah of hope and change, but who has governed for 3 ½ years as divisively and cynically as history's most malevolent tyrants.

Now we are reminded in his own words that he ate dogs as a child. It's just one more piece to the puzzle, and it is relevant.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – the Leftist manifesto which Obama used as a teaching tool in his early years as a professor and Afro-centric agitator, and which he employs as President – gives us an indication of why we should not shy away from continuing to highlight the fact that Obama ate dogs, by using the text and audio recordings of his very own words, and the proliferation of images, to remind people.

Judging by how effectively the Left wields it against conservatives in the service of promulgating lies, we surely ought to be able to wield Rule 5 in service of the truth.

Barack Hussein Obama has precious little in common with the vast majority of American people. His “otherness” began before even he can remember, and his experiences throughout his life have formed a man who – regardless or race or origin – is alien to us.

He has demonstrated a disdain for everything America has been, and only an appreciation for his vision of what she should become according to his transformational anti-American vision. He has shown a willingness to divide the American people along whatever lines serve his radical Leftist interest, and has done so with extreme cynicism, to the great damage of the country.

His radical agenda is contrary to everything that built American greatness, and yet he persists. So the time is long past for any Americans who have not yet reached the obvious conclusion that this man’s success is our failure, to wake the hell up.

I don’t believe the Romney campaign should or will linger on this angle much longer. But I think it is absolutely fair game for conservative surrogates like us to continue to proliferate the truth – Barrack Hussein Obama is “other” in many important ways. But this one relatively unimportant way is an effective example that drives the point home: Barack Obama ate dogs with Lolo as a child in order to absorb their “power”.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Something for all of us to keep in mind is the name of his book "Dreams from My Father". First off we need to keep in mind that his father was an anti-colonialist, as such he was very anti UK/US. The book is entitled "Dreams from My Father" rather than "Dreams of My Father" because these are lessons he learned from his father at an early age. Things we learn early in life force us to become the men and women we are in our adult life. His father hated the USA and was very willing to share that with his young son. Therefore obama hates the USA. Am I wrong?

Something for all of us to keep in mind is the name of his book "Dreams from My Father". First off we need to keep in mind that his father was an anti-colonialist, as such he was very anti UK/US. The book is entitled "Dreams from My Father" rather than "Dreams of My Father" because these are lessons he learned from his father at an early age. Things we learn early in life force us to become the men and women we are in our adult life. His father hated the USA and was very willing to share that with his young son. Therefore obama hates the USA. Am I wrong?

No, you're right. Not only that, but there is the very disturbing notion that Obama idolizes and internalizes some intrinsic value in his father's heritage or ethnicity, which realistically should not be, given the set of circumstances. He portrays his father almost with some kind of ethereal light; a font from which the essence of Obama flows in all its Black-African-ness. The reality is that the man was a lout who abandoned his family before his son could have known him.

I understand forgiveness. But Obama seems to twist himself into an illogical pretzel. He doesn't "forgive" his father. Instead, he rewrites his father's history, and adopts it as formative of his own.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

My parents could have been mistaken for Ward and June Cleaver but my brother~in~law came from a more unconventional household. When he was eight his father gave him a job - as lookout. His dad was a 2nd story man and would have Jerry (not his real name) sit in the car and toot the horn if he saw danger while his dad busied himself burglarizing houses and small businesses.

They both were eventually caught and he went into a foster home where he was regularly beaten by his new brothers. After two years he was reunited with his estranged mother (a basket-case) who promptly told him that his father was dead (he wasn't).

Even with that - and a tour in 'Nam he turned out pretty well.

Any objective examination of Øbozo clearly shows that while he was born into unconventional circumstances, he is a walking basketcase. He has a boatload of identity issues, combined with some of the most unsavory influences - influences that he admires - as much as he is capable of admiring anyone.

They used to joke about the "Cult of Personality" - Øbozo is the living embodiment of the phenomenon.

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a livingare outnumbered by those who vote for a living.--------------The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

This guy admits to eating dog and yet I STILL GOTTA HEAR from the numbnutz 'round here about 'what kind of person puts a dog on the car-roof for a 12-hour trip'?

ME. IN A NY MINUTE. PARTICULARLY IF IT HAD THE SQUIRTS!

But I wouldn't think of making a snack of it.

In addition, it's been quietly making the rounds that Duh Wun recently approved a New Mexico firm for horse-slaughter for human consumption. Blare that around a bit as well; even the Lefty horse-people will be appalled.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

13 Well, he did say he would scare some people because he didn't look like those other presidents on the dollar bill. He just forgot to mention he'd scare a lot more people because he snacks on dogs.Posted by: Retread at April 19, 2012 08:04 PM (joSBv)

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Mkay, I looked again, and the pictures worked this time. You made the right choice. Obama is a ghoul.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Has anyone did a background check on the chefs working in the white house? Are they international in scope? When a foreign dignitary comes to the white house, does Obama feed them the food of their culture? Has anyone did a spot check of animal clinics close to the white house? Do the obamas own pets? Do they change pets often?

I mean, the guy eats dogs......anyone ask if he's ate a cat? Or human? Would anyone be surprised if Obama had a cannabilistic side?

Has Obama ever used the term " I'll chew him up and spit him out"......but would he spit him out......

Now we are getting to the meat of the matter. If invited to eat with the obamas, would you go? When we found out moochelle loves mexican(s), could this be the explanation why they support illegal immigration?

Could this be a reason why Obama shies away from his relatives? Can't have the uncle running around the oval office chasing pets for a snack.

And we thought obamas past was hidden. His grades. His associations......little did we understand. I bet he wanted to pardon Michael Vick.

Logged

I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.

Which makes me think.......Obama sticks his nose in everyone's business, but I don't remember if he had an opinion on the Michael Vick dog fighting situation. Maybe he did and I don't remember.

Wanna bet Obama was a regular at dog fights? Cock fights? And his dad was a Muslim and we've seen videos of what they do to camels and sheep.

I thought Obama was a disgusting piece of human debris because of his policy. Little did I realize his past was hidden, not just because of grades, but his associations would include an eating disorder.

Logged

I'm not always engulfed in scandals, but when I am, I make sure I blame others.